Pork Or Armadillo More Tasty

EGW: "{Pork] would fill the system with scrofula, and especially in that warm climate produce leprosy and disease of various kinds." Science says that only the armadillo will carry the leprosy bacillus. Who is right?

1 Timothy 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 1 Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

Do not forget this part of the scripture: "which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.."

No one can say that God created swine to be received with thankgiving

Isaiah 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh,.. shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

When Peter said "Every creature of God is good...for it is sanctified by the Word of God", how would that apply to, say, pork?1) Were pigs not creatures?2) Were pigs not created by God?3) Was Peter mistaken?

Rhonda:

Just what WAS Matthew 15:11 talking about? What is it that enters a man's mouth that is NOT food? It isn't speech, since we hear with our ears. I don't think Jesus was talking about kissing.

"Every creature of God is good..for it is sanctified by the Word of God."---StrongAxe on 1/21/12 When Paul wrote this letter to Timothy, there was not a NT compiled. The phrase " word of God" referrs exclusively to what is written in the books of the OT. Thus if we read genesis 7, Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14 we get exactly what God has sanctified for food, and none of it should be refused

There is absolutely no where in the entire bible NT or OT where God sanctifies anything which he previously called unclean as being good for food.

One excample of food being refused which is Good, is the denominational doctrine of no meats except fish on fridays.

You yourself quote Peter in 1 Timothy 4:4-5, yet you then immediately say it doesn't mean what it says.

Peter said "Every creature of God is good... for it is sanctified by the Word of God."

So, with respect to pork, shrimp, etc., what do you believe?1) They are acceptable to eat (I know you don't believe this)2) They are unacceptable because they aren't God's creatures3) Peter was lying or otherwise wrong (despite Jesus giving him the authority that whatever he loosed on earth was loosed in heaven)4) Some other way of interpreting this passage so that some creatures of God'ss are nevertheless NOT sanctified (and I would love to hear an alternate explanation).Which is it?

---StrongAxe on 1/19/12 In the dream pater NEVER ate.His dream was a vision just like that of daniel or john the revelator

Peter later gave only ONE interpretation of this vision:

Acts 10:28 God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Paul later wrote:1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 1 Timothy 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

The phrase " word of God: in context refers to what is written in the OT, Thus the only food/ meat fit to be eaten is what is sanctiied by the word of God ( OT) there is not one verse where God sanctifies what is unclean as good for food

...New testament does "suggest"? not to eat strangled meat, meat in the blood,etc but it is more a matter of conscience,I think? ---richard on 1/17/12 It is not a sugestion. It is part fo the dietary law. the very exact same law that says do not eat swine, also warns against eating what dies of itself ( strangled)how can you take two parts of the dietary law strangled and eating blood) and not the rest?on what basis do you take two and leave the rest?

Cluny, nothing wrong with good food. Pork in my Chilli Verde is great. Also this Christmas I made about 25 dozen tamales made of pork. They came out great. I'm from Texas and as a child I did see an Amadillo, but never knew people ate them. If I had I would have taken a taste just to see how good it was or not. I also cook beef head, remove the soft meat and make taquitos with corn tortillas. I'm getting hungry right now but cannot eat anything because I have a blood test this morning at 8 am. right now it's 3 am.

parts of the bible speak of pork, however, the whole bible is a revelation not an establishment set in stone.

Rom 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Rom 14:18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. Rom 14:19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Rom 14:20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God...

pork is "ritually unclean" to a Jew,the bible does not tell us why(..however Antioch Epiphines offered swines flesh in mocking the temple,maybe thats an example?).Christians do not depend on the Jewish law but on grace through faith in Jesus...New testament does "suggest"? not to eat strangled meat, meat in the blood,etc but it is more a matter of conscience,I think?

John.usa, Thanks, I have. I cooked it last night till it was soft, along with a pot of rutabagus and cabbage. The mutton came out very delicious, and I only seasoned it with very little sprinkle of salt.

If a Seventh Day Adventist Congregation wanted to stop being just part of another strange cult, and pass into Christendom (albeit a marginal Denomination), they would have to jetison Mrs. White as Prophetess, in other words - repent.Preferences: Smoked Ham, Armadillo, Opossom, Racoon, Alligator, Frog legs, Pork slow cooked in a pit. All taste like Pig, but Frog and Gator, also have a fishy taste.

Cluny: I think that you would likely enjoy both swine and rats, since:

Isa 66:17 They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the LORD.

John.usa, I think I may have eaten at the Basque once. I've had lamb, I think it's called mutton, many moons ago, and I really liked it. I think I will get some this weekend. A friend I know gave me an address of a place where the prices are more reasonable than commercial stores, and their sheep are grass fed, and she says this is better than store bought.

Cluny, I tried goat at a restaurant onceonce, and it wasn't that good. Though the milk is excellent for baking. But eating armadillo, yukko, I put them in the same category as rodents like rats and so I would have to be starving before even considering one of them creatures on a dinner plate.

You keep saying that your words are proven to be true, and can be trusted. But how can WE know that this is true? We keep asking you to provide corroboration for what you say (because 2-3 witnesses are required to establish all truth), but you continuously refuse to recognize this biblical principle by providing any.

So, we are left with only your own word and nobody else's. This hardly demonstrates any kind of proof at all, especially since your opinions frequently disagree with those of many others (who DO comprise many more than 2-3 witnesses).

John.usa, I wouldn't try it if I were you. I have seen what they look like and they don't look like something that would be yummy for the tummy. They loook like a mixture of a turtle's shell, a rats tail, and an ant-eaters face.

All animals may have been created by God then but it doesn't say they all stayed where they were created,mankind didn't. The God that created the entire world was surely able to transport animals to regions where they could better survive. I deal in facts which are true for our near history and what I said is a biological fact of where the Armadillos were,when this land was explored and settled,and are living now. Its obvious that country where the Garden of Eden was has changed as have many other regions of the earth. Besides the Bible says the things which are,are not of the things which do appear.

Eloy read Leviticus 14:37 it tells you how leporsy grows on walls and clothing. The people are told to check the mildew growing on the wall and if it has spots of red or green it is leporsy,the same is true for clothing. Leporsy affects moist places on peoples skin and grows in moist places on walls and clothing. Mildew also grows in moist places so it is an ideal enviroment for leprosy to form if the wall has come in contact with the infection in some way. I hope that helps you understand how that can happen.

Eloy, I disagree with you also. While you read the passages in (Genesis 2:19.20) you imply every single species of animals and birds since time begin were all gathered inside Eden, and that Adam named every single one. That was not the point God wanted to convey. Here God was calling attention to the fact that He created them "out of the ground" as He did man, but man, who was a living soul in the image of God was to name them, signifying his rule over them. Naming is an act of discerning something about the creature so as to an act of leadership or authority over that which was named. For there is no kindship with animals.

cluny personally addresses me and sinuously asks of me a question only to bear false witness and blaspheme: "\\I do not think that enough research has been done in the way of determining all the kinds of animals, and insects, which can be infected and be carriers of the disease.\\Apparently youm know nothing about the years of extensive research into Hansen's disease (to use the medical name for leprosy).Can youm tell us how a house gets leprosy?"All come to know, even cluny, that my words are proven truth and can be trusted, but cluny's antiChrist desires oppose against the truth onto his own loss.

Why do "you" ask of me when you have no desire to receive the truth: but you ask of me only for the sole purpose to bear false witness and blaspheme and to dis the truth, and thereby incur sin upon yourself?

"And pretending themselves to be just men they asked, so they might entangle him in talk. But Jesus knew their wickedness, and said, Why fake you all me, all you hypocrites?"

This may sound surprising but rat and cat actually taste pretty good. Kinda like chicken. When I was an exterminator, my boss and I caught several rats at a local feed store and we field-dressed them on the back of the truck and put them on ice and deep fried them when we got home. Not bad. Later, He was getting sick and tired of all the stray cats in the neighborhood, so one day we went out with a couple .22 rifles and eliminated about 10 of them. We rolled the meat in batter and deep fried them. We called them "kitten nuggets". They were good. We even made some red sauce and had "sweet & sour kitten". The rat is actually better than the cat though. Cat is a little more stringy and chewy than the rat.

I think I agree with Eloy. All the animals were named by Adam, so later the armadillos must have hopped the boat with Nephi, or maybe earlier with the Brother of Jared, and came to the Americas with them. I alluded to that in an earlier post.

Darlene, According to the Holy Scripture in Genesis 2, all animals, including the armadillo, was created in Mesopotamia in the Middle East, sometimes called the Mediterranean. And Adam the first man that Jesus created, named each one of the animals.

The armadillo,Spanish for Little Armored One,was called a Turtle-rabbit by the Aztec Indians and is found only in South,Central,and North America. Before People came to the Americas the Armadillo had no leprosy and neither did the Native Americans. It is evident it was brought here by explorers and settlers. Leprosy can be caught but not easily,only with long and continued contact with the infected person. Leprosy can grow at 93 degrees F and is known to infect humans,armadillos,monkeys,and rats. There was an increase of leprosy in Texas due to people handling and eating armadillo. The only Leper Colony in N.America is gone but was in Louisiana,now medicine controls it instead

There are several of us who repeatedly ask you to justify many questionable things that you post here. But rather than providing corroborating evidence for these things, you either ignore the questions, or hurl scathing personal attacks at those asking the questions. Why don't you just answer the questions?

Regardless of what you think of those asking them, the questions remain valid and deserving of answers. Without corroboration, you statements are merely one witness, and thus, do not meet the biblical standard of truth.

\\2. Why do "you" ask of me when you have no desire to receive the truth: but you ask of me only for the sole purpose to bear false witness and blaspheme and to dis the truth, and thereby incur sin upon yourself?\\

What youm are saying is that youm cannot answer ,the question.

And nothing youm have ever said is the truth.

A man who deliberately rejected Jesus like youm did is in no position to call others sinners.

cluny you ask, "Can youm tell us how a house gets leprosy?"1. Whom is "us", when only "you yourself" is asking a question?2. Why do "you" ask of me when you have no desire to receive the truth: but you ask of me only for the sole purpose to bear false witness and blaspheme and to dis the truth, and thereby incur sin upon yourself?"And pretending themselves to be just men they asked, so they might entangle him in talk. But Jesus knew their wickedness, and said, Why fake you all me, all you hypocrites?"

Scripture reveals that the disease of leprosy is contagious, signified by the individuals whom had it were compelled to cover their mouths and cry out "unclean, unclean" whenever they had to go out into the public. Like other diseases and parasites spread by animals, from viruses to rabies, I do not think that enough research has been done in the way of determining all the kinds of animals, and insects, which can be infected and be carriers of the disease.

Writing was done by hand on parchments, skin, wood, and stone. Printing was done by machines much later. Gutenberg invented movable type (i.e. printing in which individual letters were engaved and combined multiple ways, rather than each page having to be separately engraved in toto) in the 1400s, although the Chinese had it around 1000. The Chinese even had wood block printing in the second century, but that was still after Biblical times.

These conversations are interesting. Armadillos are native to North America. If they were originally Jewish, they must have come over on the boat with Nephi. But I have no idea how they got to Transylvania...

Once again, cluny is corrected for his falsehood, for it is proven by the Holy Scriptures witness that printing on skins, on papyra, on parchment, and on stone existed thousands of years before any mass production of books was ever done on a machine built after Gutenberg was born.

Can you show any sources that agree with your etymology of armadillo coming from Hebrew? Can you cite just WHICH source from 163 BC had this word?

Armadillo comes from Spanish "armado" (around 1570) and earlier from Latin "armato" meaning "armed". Check any dictionary. Or, if you disagree, please show us any dictionary that says it comes from Hebrew. I would really be fascinated to see one.

You claim "I am proven to bear witness to the truth here". Really? By whom? Where is your proof? We often ask you to cite other references that corroborate your claims, which you very rarely ever do.

\\cluny, I am proven to bear witness to the truth here, and I rightly correct them whom are in error. Now I am finished responding to your foolish antiChristian and antiEloy postings. Repent cluny, and get on the same page as I am.\\

Eloy, if youm appeared at my door saying, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son," I wouldn't believe youm had I not already read it in the Bible for myself, as nothing youm say is ever accurate.

cluny, I am proven to bear witness to the truth here, and I rightly correct them whom are in error. Now I am finished responding to your foolish antiChristian and antiEloy postings. Repent cluny, and get on the same page as I am.

cluny, Once again, I correct you for your dissings. I asked you politely to not personally address me until that time that you are ready to receive the truth that I post, otherwise incur sin against yourself by your vain dis sings and blasphemies.

Eloy, A pig does not "wallow in it's own feces" in fact they excrete in one area and sleep in a different area (Supposing the farmer has allowed enough space) Salmonella is more a problem with any kind of meat or fish improperly handled!

If you ever happen to watch that old 1931 movie Dracula with Bela Lugosi, you will notice there are armadillos living in the castle in Transylvania. So that should confirm that pigs are safer to eat than armadillos.

(c: "scrofula" > one source says scrofula is tuberculosis of the lymph glands of the neck. It is the result, often enough, of the person having poor immunity. So, possibly this means the main problem of this disease is not an animal, but the person having a weak immune system.

The germ of leprosy is in the same group as the tuberculosis germ. I understand that one breaks down skin tissue, and the other lung tissue mostly.

I did not get to know Ellen so I can understand how she really is and how this determined what she really means by what she says. Just reading her stuff does not make her clear.

Better than this . . . personally get to know God so we understand all He means by His word!!! (c: